There is only ONE consensus rarely formed, but 1000's of fruit loops always sticking on the floor.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I have no problem with the idea that we cannot be totally sure of how much warming will occur. the three points I insist on are :

1. Global warming is real. The world is warming, and other consequences such as sea level rise are operating alongside the warming.2. The cause of that warming is greenhouse gas release by humans.3. The consequences of all this will be a right royal pain in the rear end to humanity, and we should be taking action to mitigate the warming and to adapt to the consequences.

If you guys accept these three points, then I have no quarrel. If you do not, I have to see you as irrational deniers.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have no problem with the idea that we cannot be totally sure of how much warming will occur. the three points I insist on are :

1. Global warming is real. The world is warming, and other consequences such as sea level rise are operating alongside the warming.2. The cause of that warming is greenhouse gas release by humans.3. The consequences of all this will be a right royal pain in the rear end to humanity, and we should be taking action to mitigate the warming and to adapt to the consequences.

If you guys accept these three points, then I have no quarrel. If you do not, I have to see you as irrational deniers.

Apparently the rules now allow name-calling.

If that's the case, then you have no moral grounds for complaining if I see you as a gullible pinhead alarmist.

Especially since point #3 is contradicted by your opening statement where you say "we cannot be totally sure of how much warming will occur".

xouper wrote: Especially since point #3 is contradicted by your opening statement where you say "we cannot be totally sure of how much warming will occur".

How is that contradictory?

I know I'm going to have lunch today, I don't know how many potato chips I will eat.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have no problem with the idea that we cannot be totally sure of how much warming will occur. the three points I insist on are :

1. Global warming is real. The world is warming, and other consequences such as sea level rise are operating alongside the warming.2. The cause of that warming is greenhouse gas release by humans.3. The consequences of all this will be a right royal pain in the rear end to humanity, and we should be taking action to mitigate the warming and to adapt to the consequences.

If you guys accept these three points, then I have no quarrel. If you do not, I have to see you as irrational deniers.

We all agree on point 1.

The human contribution of warming is only hypothesized. The consensus was the CO2 did not reach significant concentrations until the 1950s. Thus most of the warming Ince 1900 to 195o was natural. It is highly unlikely that those natural factors simply stop and warming was handed of to CO2. If there is very low climate sensitivity, the CO2 contribution would be small.

the 3rd point is not supported a all. Warming whether natural or anthropogenic, has increased the growing season. Cold kills 4 times as many people as warmth.

An obsessive belief in your points 2 & 3, suggests you have no historical perspective regards climate change, you abandoned the scientific principle that requires alternative explanations must be examined, and you have glommed onto irrational fears that are not supported by the evidence.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

If a bully tells me he is going to punch me in the nose, I will not know how hard it will be, but I definitely will know that it is going to hurt.

If we do not know how much global warming will be, that does not prevent us from knowing it will hurt.

ROTFLMAO Are you and Bobbo in a competition for the silliest alarmist irrelevant analogies?

I want to enter your silliness competition.

So here's my analogy. If we don't know how attached we will get to an imaginary lover (i.e. theoretical human caused global warming) , we will never know how much it will hurt when our imagined connection fails.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

The world has warmed 1 Celsius. Sea levels have risen more than 20 cms. The Paris accord is supposed to keep warming within 2 Celsius, but the clear signs are already there that the deniers will sabotage that effort. So warming will exceed 2 Celsius and sea level rise will probably exceed half a meter. That rise is enough by itself to cost humanity hundreds of trillions of dollars in trying to prevent the damage of an encroaching ocean.

I have not mentioned the numerous other harms, and they are still uncertain. But change does not bring blessings. It brings the need to adapt to change, and that is always very, very expensive.

Jim is suggesting that Bobbo and I are stupid. We are not. But we are not arrogant, either. Bobbo and I are smart enough to admit we are not climate scientists, and defer to those who are. We know (because we are smart) how little we know of climate change. Because we are smart and not idiotic and arrogant, we accept what those who truly understand say is going on. And what is truly going on is anthropogenic global warming, to a degree that will cause harm, and needs both mitigation and adaptation.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim is suggesting that Bobbo and I are stupid. We are not. But we are not arrogant, either. Bobbo and I are smart enough to admit we are not climate scientists, and defer to those who are. We know (because we are smart) how little we know of climate change. Because we are smart and not idiotic and arrogant, we accept what those who truly understand say is going on. And what is truly going on is anthropogenic global warming, to a degree that will cause harm, and needs both mitigation and adaptation.

But Lance's quotes prove otherwise

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you know your science, Jim, you will realise that atoms and molecules which absorb radiant energy will re-emit that energy at a different wavelength. CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of infra red, but does not emit the same wavelengths. This is kind of basic stuff.

Lance got it so very wrong about emitted wavelengths. And despite such incorrectness, I have never used the word stupid to describe Lance and Bobbo. A much kinder phrase would be " grossly ill-informed".

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you know your science, Jim, you will realise that atoms and molecules which absorb radiant energy will re-emit that energy at a different wavelength. CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of infra red, but does not emit the same wavelengths. This is kind of basic stuff.

I am curious Lance.

What atoms do you believe absorb radiant energy? Simple diatomic molecules like O2 or N2 don't absorb infrared. more complex molecules like CO2 and H20 with 2 bonds do. But I have never heard of a single atom in our atmosphere absorbing infra-red. Perhaps you can enlighten me so I don't undeservedly think less about your scientific knowledge.

BTW Did you ever take Biology 101 at SFSU?

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

You know..................I don't know nothin' bout chemistry and physics..........but it seems to me that every molecule in the atmosphere gets "hit" by infra red and then does something thereafter. I'm gonna guess lance calls that absorbing the infra red and re-emitting it while Jimbo wants to call it something else and make some kind of point from the difference in labels while the two processes are exactly the same.?

This is the stupidity of thinking in labels. On par with Cherry Picking, zig zagging, and not answering direct questions.

silly Jimbo. So......... Jimbo.....what happens when an infrared wave contacts an o2 molecule and how is that different from absorbing and re-emitting it?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Jim Steele wrote:What atoms do you believe absorb radiant energy? Simple diatomic molecules like O2 or N2 don't absorb infrared. more complex molecules like CO2 and H20 with 2 bonds do. But I have never heard of a single atom in our atmosphere absorbing infra-red.

Once more the straw man.I did not say atoms absorb infra red. I said they absorb radiant energy. All atoms absorb radiant energy, and they emit that energy on a different wavelength. If this did not happen, spectroscopy would not be possible. If you send a laser beam at a bit of iron, it will heat up and glow. Simple. If the heating is not sufficient to cause it to glow, it will still warm up and emit that energy as infra red.

ROTFLMAO You should have stopped there. You have only revealed that despite how little chemistry and physics you know, you gladly fabricate total fallacies with the intent of supporting your agenda and blather on as if it were the truth. That's why you are such a slow learner regards climate science.

The whole argument for global warming depends on the fact that some molecules are totally transparent to different wavelengths.

Jim Steele wrote:What atoms do you believe absorb radiant energy? Simple diatomic molecules like O2 or N2 don't absorb infrared. more complex molecules like CO2 and H20 with 2 bonds do. But I have never heard of a single atom in our atmosphere absorbing infra-red.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I did not say atoms absorb infra red. I said they absorb radiant energy. All atoms absorb radiant energy, and they emit that energy on a different wavelength. If this did not happen, spectroscopy would not be possible. If you send a laser beam at a bit of iron, it will heat up and glow. Simple. If the heating is not sufficient to cause it to glow, it will still warm up and emit that energy as infra red.

Lance you are certainly arrogant enough to keep BSing your way past the science.

Indeed you did not say "infrared" in that sentence, but nonetheless your "adiant energy" was stated in the context of global warming and which molecules and what wavelengths absorb infrared. You are just weaseling your way around your ill-informed beliefs. Even if you statement was an irrelevant tangent meant to insert an irrelevant true detail to obscure the topic at hand, gas molecules to do not radiate like a black body. If a gas molecule can not absorb infrared, then it will not emit infrared. A bit of iron is not a gas molecule. You keep trying to disseminate fake science, no matter how many times you are corrected. Not a great show of integrity.

Light waves can react in one of 3 ways when encountering matter. It can be reflected, absorbed or transmitted. We make use of visible light because it is transmitted through the atmosphere.

Below is a graph showing at which wavelengths of energy is radiated from the sun (yellow) and from the earth (red) Black body radiation is dependent on the temperature of the body. The hotter sun radiates its peak energy in the ultraviolet wavelengths 0.4 microns and smaller in the diagram below. A cooler earth radiates infrared with peak energy between 8 and 14 microns. Between 8 and 14 microns also happens to be the atmospheric window that does not absorb those infrared wavelengths but transmits infrared back to space unencumbered. That is part of the reason why the earth cools off more quickly than the atmosphere. And this window is why after specific wavelengths o infrared are absorbed and re-emitted by CO2, after it warms the earth surface, the earth then re-mits much of that energy quickly back to space through the window. Thus low climate sensitivity

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

The level of climate sensitivity is not for you to say, Jim, in your ignorance. It is for fully trained climate scientists to determine, and they do not agree with you.

I would be interested to know what crappy web site you use to get your ideas. As I said before, Big Oil and Big Coal are busy disseminating false information. Because they have the money to hire (bribe?) them, they use scientists to come up with spurious but genuine sounding stuff. Fortunately, the vast majority of scientists do not go along with the bull-shit.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The level of climate sensitivity is not for you to say, Jim, in your ignorance. It is for fully trained climate scientists to determine, and they do not agree with you.

ROTFLMAO Lance now advocates against people thinking for themselves. Lance wants mind police who decide who can say what? This a typical responses of intellectual fascists.

Lance has shown multiple times in this thread that he does not even understand the most basic science that climate scientists have actually determined. Instead he makes up his own fake science that no scientist agrees with and then in Orewellian fashion says we must agree with his fake science he claims the scientists agree with.

ROTFLMAO

Lance Kennedy wrote:I would be interested to know what crappy web site you use to get your ideas. As I said before, Big Oil and Big Coal are busy disseminating false information. Because they have the money to hire (bribe?) them, they use scientists to come up with spurious but genuine sounding stuff. Fortunately, the vast majority of scientists do not go along with the bull-shit.

The uneducated are always quick to embrace conspiracy theories.

What I write seems strange to Lance only because he does not know the science. Everything I have posted is based on validated physics published in peer review journals. My perusal of the data and scientific literatures leads me to believe sensitivity is low, and over the past decade climate scientists have been lowering their estimates of sensitivity.

If you disagree Lance simply show the evidence and the science that supports your contention. Instead of your silly conspirator personal attacks, simply provide the evidence showing why infrared isn't flowing freely through the atmospheric windows

However you can't use "Lance's-fabricated-fake" science.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

It was a take off on the old song that continues "...but I do know that one and one is two...........etc" and was a request for you to explain what happens when a wave/ray hits a molecule. You do that later: reflected, absorbed, or transmitted. Evidently, when Lance says a molecule absorbs and then re-emits a ray you mock him for not using your label of transmitted? I don't know for sure, for as always, you don't answer direct questions.

We make use of visible light because it is transmitted through the atmosphere.

.......and why is the sky blue?

My perusal of the data and scientific literatures leads me to believe sensitivity is low, and over the past decade climate scientists have been lowering their estimates of sensitivity.

Just look at what this label you hang on the physics of climate science is bringing us. IT DOESN'T MATTER what you call it: high or low: everything that is happening and will happen is a result of the co2 driving our climate. This mostly goes back to you claiming the knowledge base to disagree with 97% of qualified scientists. You can do that............but odds are, you are wrong. You are no different than any fakir who peruses any subject and comes up with their own whacked out theory.

The uneducated are always quick to embrace conspiracy theories.

Agreeing with 97% of qualified scientists AND THE FORMAL POSITIONS OF EVERY ORGANIZED BODY OF SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE is not embracing a conspiracy theory. Either YOU are uneducated, ......or ...... the educated are capable of embracing or creating ......oh wait: you have no theory of your own to present: like a Republican, all you do is reject the other side. Nothing of your own to offer, no testable theory, just Science Denial.

Indeed you did not say "infrared" in that sentence, but nonetheless your "adiant energy" was stated in the context of global warming and which molecules and what wavelengths absorb infrared.

What Lance said was absorb and re-emit. And then he also said the re-emission is in all directions part of which is back to earth which is how heat is "trapped" by the atmosphere. A very simple cogent easy to understand explanation. Not like your Dark Matter graphs of sun and Earth that make no sense at all as they don't explain the mechanism at all.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

It was a take off on the old song that continues "...but I do know that one and one is two...........etc" and was a request for you to explain what happens when a wave/ray hits a molecule. You do that later: reflected, absorbed, or transmitted. Evidently, when Lance says a molecule absorbs and then re-emits a ray you mock him for not using your label of transmitted? I don't know for sure, for as always, you don't answer direct questions.

ROTFLMAO Damn bobbo you continue to exude ignorance and then indulge in stupid analogies about labels. You get direct answers and because you refuse to learn, you whine that your question was not answered directly. Transmit means the light passes through with no effect. Absorb means absorb with an effect. Very very different grasshopper. DO some damn homework and educate yourself instead of slinging your verbal diarrhea.

And you both hide behind the bogus consensus crap. Everything I have written is supported by evidence in peer reviewed science. The only thing to debate here is the degree of sensitivity.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Jim is not as smart as he thinks. For example, he said that oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb radiation. But the ozone layer is formed by the absorption of ultra violet by oxygen. Ultra violet splits the oxygen molecule causing the formation of monatomic oxygen, which in turn reacts with an oxygen molecule to form an ozone molecule. This is the absorption of radiation. The ozone then absorbs more ultra violet. Since ozone is also oxygen, this makes Jim a liar.

Jim has read some of the bull-shit put out by Big Coal and Big Oil, and thinks that makes him wise. It actually makes him a fool. That is because anyone who believes lies can be called a fool.

This is not a conspiracy theory of mine. It is simple, unmitigated reality. Large corporations are in the habit of publishing bull-shit where it can help their sales, and make their operations look better in the public eye. This practice goes back a long time. The slave owning plantations of the 19th century USA used to do it. It took Abe Lincoln to shoot their bull-shit down in flames. Big Tobacco fought back against the medical fact that smoking causes cancer by publishing lots of garbage. Many smokers continued their foul habit based on these rationalisations. No one will know how many people died unnecessarily because of this approach. Big Murder, in order to sell more guns, pays people to write rubbish about how guns are good for society. Big Pharma has a long record of publishing lies about their products. For me to say the Big Oil and Big Coal publish nonsense about how global warming is not much of a problem is not conspiracy. It is simple reality.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim is not as smart as he thinks. For example, he said that oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb radiation.

Lance your a friggin' piece of work with absolutely no integrity.You are the only one who claimed (as I quoted before), "the atmosphere doesn't radiate. I have only argued oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb and emit infrared. Quote me exactly and in context, or again you continue to show yourself as a despicable liar trying to cover-up your countless scientific fallacies that can be seen through out this thread. Anyone can peruse this thread and see you are just making up more crap. Like all intellectual fascists if you keep telling a lie often enough the sheeple will believe it

Here is what I said regards oxygen and warming the stratosphere, in an earlier reply to clarify bobby's silly answer that ground cools more quickly because it is further from the sun.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"Why does the land cool faster than the air above?" ///// Obviously: its farther away from the sun!.

Jim Steele wrote:Dang Bobbo. You are like a Geiger counter. The closer we get to revealing just how little you know, the faster the nonsensical blather

Lets provide a little science for you.

The air in the troposphere is heated primarily by conduction when the air contact the warmed land. So the land and surface air, although farther away from the sun, actually warms faster.

As air rises closer to the sun, it cools. This is due to less pressure and the rate of cooling is measured by lapse rate. (No links to lapse rate Bobbo, but it is not hidden info. Look it up and do your own homework. )

In the stratosphere, the air warms as it gets closer to the sun because the oxygen and ozone in the upper layers of the stratosphere absorb the UV light. There as we descend towards the earth the air is cooler because greater less and less UV penetrates the further from the sun we go.

But the question was never what layers are cooler or warmer. the scientific question at hand is ...

Why does the land cool more rapidly than the air above it?

Its a rate of cooling question due to radiative dynamics resulting in an inversion with cooler air near the surface and warmer air above.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim has read some of the bull-shit put out by Big Coal and Big Oil, and thinks that makes him wise. It actually makes him a fool. That is because anyone who believes lies can be called a fool.

This is not a conspiracy theory of mine. It is simple, unmitigated reality. Large corporations are in the habit of publishing bull-shit where it can help their sales, and make their operations look better in the public eye. This practice goes back a long time. The slave owning plantations of the 19th century USA used to do it. It took Abe Lincoln to shoot their bull-shit down in flames. Big Tobacco fought back against the medical fact that smoking causes cancer by publishing lots of garbage. Many smokers continued their foul habit based on these rationalisations. No one will know how many people died unnecessarily because of this approach. Big Murder, in order to sell more guns, pays people to write rubbish about how guns are good for society. Big Pharma has a long record of publishing lies about their products. For me to say the Big Oil and Big Coal publish nonsense about how global warming is not much of a problem is not conspiracy. It is simple reality.

ROTFLMAO. Lance you fail to understand the science completely. You show that you have never read any real science, as I have, and as I have shared with you. Instead of engaging in a meaningful scientific discussion and educating yourself, you choose to tell more lies, falsely fabricate the source of the science I have presented and the physics that ALL claim scientists agree with, and instead wade into conspiracy theory, slavery and tobacco. ROTFLMAO

Sadly Bobbo and Lance exemplify the typical climate alarmist BS and sniper attacks typically launched against those who share the real science because it exposes the bogus nature of their gloom and doom politics.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

And, Jim, you had the temerity to claim you did not engage in ad hom attacks.

I have a degree in science. I also have been reading science for most of my life. My knowledge of science is almost certainly greater than yours. I do admit, though, that my knowledge of climate science is limited, since my degree is in biology, and my work over 40 odd years was as an industrial chemist specialising in industrial microbicides. However, the simple fact that you dispute the conclusions of almost every trained climatologist means that your knowledge of climate science is at least as poor as mine.

Lance Kennedy wrote:And, Jim, you had the temerity to claim you did not engage in ad hom attacks.

Lance it is not an Ad Hom attack, for clearly showing that you are making up crap, totally lying for the express purpose of trying to denigrate me simply because I have shown countless times how wrong your science beliefs are .

You have no integrity and to make your case have only been able to engage in slanderous lies! That's no an Ad Hom, is a truthful accounting of your slander!!

Here is another example of your lies that contradict exactly what I've said

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim is not as smart as he thinks. For example, he said that oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb radiation. But the ozone layer is formed by the absorption of ultra violet by oxygen. Ultra violet splits the oxygen molecule causing the formation of monatomic oxygen, which in turn reacts with an oxygen molecule to form an ozone molecule. This is the absorption of radiation. The ozone then absorbs more ultra violet. Since ozone is also oxygen, this makes Jim a liar.

Jim Steele wrote:The troposphere heats primarily via conduction of heat from the ground.When the non-greenhouse gases, O2 and N2 that make up more than 98% of our atmosphere, are heated via colliding with the warm land surface they hold that heat longer because they do not emit infrared like greenhouse gases do

Nevertheless, it is very clear that Jim and Xouper are both, from a position of ignorance, disagreeing with thousands of genuine experts. Bobbo and I both admit we are not experts. So we go with what the experts say.

Guess what guys. That makes us about 1000 times more likely to be correct than the deniers.

Keep in mind, an ad hominem is only a logical fallacy when used as an argument. But Jim is not using it as an argument, he is directly criticizing your behavior on this forum.

And I don't blame him. You don't like it when others misrepresent your position — you often call "straw man alert" — so perhaps you should consider not making up straw men when commenting on Jim's position.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nevertheless, it is very clear that Jim and Xouper are both, from a position of ignorance, disagreeing with thousands of genuine experts. Bobbo and I both admit we are not experts. So we go with what the experts say.

Guess what guys. That makes us about 1000 times more likely to be correct than the deniers.

No, that merely means you have chosen intellectual laziness instead of thinking for yourself.

A proper skeptic goes beyond the "consensus" to see if there are any legitimate dissenting opinions from other experts.

Guess what guys. There are many such dissenting opinions from climate scientists published in the journals.

Then it becomes a matter of which experts you choose to believe.

I haven't yet decided. I am still investigating.

A very big red flag for me is that the climate has not behaved in the way the climate models predicted. Ergo, there might be something wrong with those climate models.

Contrary to Lance's uninformed accusation, I am a climate skeptic, not a denier.

xouper wrote: Guess what guys. There are many such dissenting opinions from climate scientists published in the journals.

No.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Nor was Jims comments simple criticism. They went way over the top into downright insult. Not that I care. Only small minded people are easily insulted.

Now, thats putting salt on the wound. I'll let X tell us which is which.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo and I both admit we are not experts. So we go with what the experts say.

Guess what guys. That makes us about 1000 times more likely to be correct than the deniers.

This is my take away for the month. People who claim an expertise--so often are not. Ha, ha.........and following my own rule, I do review each claim towards expertise that I make from time to time: language, logic...etc. Claiming to know more than experts in a field that one has no "real" experience in takes the disagreement to a whole different level. Always amusing when so often such opinions reveal a lack of understanding/comfort/familiarities with: BASICS.

Language, logic---I have claimed some part of the label expert...... but I'm really only recognizing that even with my non-expert level of knowledge, I can spot some BASIC errors when presented. Its all a continuum........if you are on the right track at all.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?